论数字货币的法律定性--经济本质标准的构建与类型化应用  

On the Legal Nature of Digital Currency--The Construction and Typed Application of Economic Essence Standard

作　　者：王沛然 WANG Pei-ran(Research Center for Financial Law,Fudan University,Shanghai 200438,China)

机构地区：[1]复旦大学金融法研究中心,上海200438

出　　处：《北京科技大学学报（社会科学版）》2020年第6期73-80,共8页Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing(Social Sciences Edition)

摘　　要：在单一法学视野下对数字货币进行法律定性,存在脱离客体本质的局限,容易受"法定地位"货币标准的误导,亦可能造成以偏概全的后果。宜从经济学对货币本质的认识进路出发,以构成货币的实质标准,即债务记录功能与"透明共识"流通基础--为概念核心,构建一套更为具体的类型化法律定性体系。如果某类数字货币具备经济事实上的"货币性",则应在法律上视之为货币并进行相应的调整规范,即承认其货币"法律属性";至于国家法律规定的法偿性,应仅作为区分"法定货币"与"约定货币"的界线。文章应用该分析框架,对三种典型数字货币进行定位:我国央行数字货币DC/EP具有法定货币地位,而比特币应被定性为特殊类别的数字资产或虚拟商品,Libra则应归属于约定货币类别。The study of the legal nature of digital currency from a single legal perspective has the limitation of being divorced from the nature of money, and is easy to be misled by the standard of "legal tender status". It may also lead to the consequence of being partial to the whole. Based on the study of the nature of money in economics, the function of debt recording and the circulation basis of "transparent consensus" should be the essential criteria for money. Thus, a set of more specific typed legal characterization system can be constructed: if a certain kind of digital currency has the economic de facto "monetary nature", it should be regarded as money in law and adjusted accordingly, i.e., to recognize its "legal attribute" as money;the compulsory acceptance character stipulated by law should only serve as the boundary between "legal tender" and "agreed tender". Under this analytical framework, this paper concludes that DC/EP, the central bank digital currency of China, has the status of legal tender, while Bitcoin should be classified as digital asset, and Libra should belong to the agreed tender category.

关 键 词：数字货币 法律定性 经济本质 类型化 

分 类 号：D922.285[政治法律—经济法学] F822[政治法律—法学]